September 19, 2014, 01:59:26 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - dtaylor

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 48
Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: September 18, 2014, 02:44:28 PM »
I don't really see significant differences.  Since 36 MP >> 22 MP, I must conclude that your test is flawed. fairness DPReview did not underexpose a black cat in a coal mine and push 5 stops with all noise reduction turned off.

If they had done over man.

Update: I added this to the original post, but these were from Imaging Resource, not DPReview. I had them on my HD already from a prior comparison and just typed the wrong site.

Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: September 18, 2014, 02:29:25 PM »
Tony Northrup made a transparent infomercial. If he isn't yet on Nikon's payroll, it isn't for lack of trying on his part.

Having him on your payroll would backfire. His work is so transparent, late night infomercial that anyone watching it would immediately assume your product was actually the weaker one and you were trying to bash the competition  ;D

Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: September 18, 2014, 02:26:07 PM »
I think this is why we haven't seen a 'very high' mp FF sensor from Canon yet. Once you go beyond a certain level of potential resolution the format becomes the restriction in the sense of the magnification (focal length of lens) that you have to use pro rata, the size of image capture and then the magnification required to view the image. So smaller format equals shorter focal length (less magnification) equals smaller capture equals greater magnification to view.

Yep. Saddens me to say this, but I don't think we are going to get those wall sized detailed prints you see from LF film / MF digital shooters in 35mm format (except for stitching of course). A somewhat affordable Canon MF system with brand new lenses designed to the best of their abilities would excite me much more then a 50 MP Canon DSLR. (But even "somewhat affordable" would probably land in the $20k range for a minimum kit.)

Incidentally this is why ( excluding dof, low light etc etc) you just can't tell the difference in a (moderately enlarged) image from APS against FF when the subject is close to you and filling the frame, but you can when the subject detail is much further away, ie landscapes.

I would go a step further and say it can be hard to tell even in many landscape shots. But basically we're in agreement here.

We're in a golden age of photography. A relatively poor guy can pick up a Rebel and a decent lens and produce IQ nearly as good as a D810 / A7R with the latest, most expensive lenses. It should be even more about the image content now, but instead we become even more fixated on tiny differences and exaggerate their significance to silly proportions. (Isn't this a known phenomenon in psychology? Where people presented with many very good choices become more stressed and analytical then when they have one good and a few worse choices?)

When I step back and think about how far technology has come, I am completely blown away by what a $300 EOS M + EF-M 18-55 cheapo kit lens + ACR/PS can produce. Jump in a DeLorean and take that thing back to the 1990's and it literally would have been able to hang with medium format film up to 16x24".

Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: September 18, 2014, 02:10:31 PM »
But yes, put the very best of lenses on the D8xx and you have more resolving power.

Put the same lens on the 5D3 via an adapter, not really. Not what people imagine. There is a difference, it's just incredibly difficult to reveal.

Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: September 18, 2014, 02:07:13 PM »
Not to mention the 85mm f/1.2's enormous CA on the sides such that it doesn't sharpen up until somewhere between f/2.8 and f/4:

Oh boy...

The Nikon is sharper across the frame, but that is some of the most disgusting CA I've ever seen. I've seen Chinese c mount lenses with less CA!

I'm not going to wade into the AF mud fest because without reproducible tests...or a really calm, rational, ego free group of people who also have hundreds of hours of stick time on's pointless.

Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: September 18, 2014, 01:50:02 PM »
Are you saying that the 'naturally crisper, sharper images' from the 36 MP D8x0 can be readily and easily distinguished from images taken with a 24, 22, 20, or 18 MP FF sensor when downsampled for small prints or web-sized images?

I don't know about him, but I will go on record as saying that anyone who walked into a gallery of 24x36" prints made using both cameras, but by the same photographer, would never know the prints came from two different cameras.

Even at larger sizes I don't think anyone would know unless you showed them identical prints (i.e. same scene and all factors but sensor made equal) and asked them to look for differences. Then a critical reviewer observing very closely (i.e. 6-12" from the print) might pick up a difference here or there.

Northrup said the 5DIII was ok for Facebook, but you're saying the D810 would be better for Facebook?

The claims just get more and more ridiculous, don't they?

Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: September 18, 2014, 01:39:32 PM »
Sorry, but there is a relatively large difference in detail between the two. That has nothing to do with dynamic range, simply the pixel size. The D800 resolves quite a lot more detail than the 5D III. That either translates into the ability to enlarge more with the same level of detail as smaller enlargements with the 5D III, or it translates into naturally crisper, sharper images when downsampling for smaller prints or online publication.

"Large difference in detail" #1

"Large difference in detail" #2

"Large difference in detail" #2

All images: left 5D mark III, right Nikon D810, DPReview studio scene RAW files at ISO 100 / NR0 converted using ACR standard settings. 5D3 file was resized to match (Bicubic Sharper) and then had light sharpening applied. I encourage everyone to download test files such as these and try them for yourself.

At best one can say tiny high contrast details are rendered a little better at pixel peeping sizes, and the D810 will sometimes pick up light, small patterns or textures missed on the 5D3. Shown at 50% on a 96 ppi monitor (i.e. 25x40" print) this stuff would be invisible. In print it would be invisible without a loupe.

We are well into diminishing returns for small format. People talk endlessly about AA filters and 22/24 vs. 36 MP yet they hardly matter at all even when pixel peeping tripod mounted shots made with primes at optimum apertures. Subject lighting, lens, technique, post processing, each 1,000x more important to fine detail and sharpness. I hope when Canon releases a high MP body they A) don't charge 1D prices, and B) shoot past 50 MP even if high ISO suffers. Because at this point I'm wondering if even >50 MP would yield truly significant differences in print without also jumping to a MF sized sensor.

This, btw, is why I'm going with the Sony A7 over the A7R. I see the exact same thing there. I would rather have electronic first curtain shutter, the phase detect points, and the extra cash in my pocket for lenses.

Correction: this is the Imaging Resource studio scene (RAW / ISO 100 / NR0 / converted by me using ACR standard). I had these files on my HD already from when I was comparing 5D3 / A7 / A7R / D8x0. Sorry about that.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 13, 2014, 12:46:08 AM »
While these may show what we are looking for, the examples would never prove anything without knowing the full level of control that each shot had.

That was a post to illustrate what total DR means and what shadow latitude means. That's all. Not a comparison of bodies (I used Dean's shots for convenience). So if you looked up photographic dynamic range and shadow latitude in a textbook on photography you might see photos just like that. An illustration of the meaning of words.

I did this because there is severe misunderstanding by certain people in this thread regarding the meaning of these two terms. When you push shadows and see roughly the same detail but more noise that is not a difference in dynamic range but in shadow latitude. If it was a DR difference there wouldn't be any detail in one, but blocked/clipped blacks.

That's all  :)

Lenses / Re: 18-55 EF-M STM lens
« on: September 13, 2014, 12:28:56 AM »
I just bought this lens hoping to get somre mover versatality out of my EOS-M camera.  On the scene intelligent Auto picture taking mode (which I use 99% of the time) I am noticing that the images are really soft.  I saw some reviews say the same thing and this is more pronounced indoors with lower light. 

Aside from applying a sharpen filter or mask - is there a setting I should use on the camera to adjust for this?  Thanks - Tom

Mine is very sharp. But there's always sample variation. Mount it on a tripod, manually focus on a flat target, shoot different apertures, see what you get.

If it's soft when other possibilities are eliminated then you might need to exchange it.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 13, 2014, 12:24:35 AM »
Maybe photos will help explain terminology.

This is the same (or similar as we shall see) total DR:

This is what less total DR would look like if there was a large difference in total DR:

And this is similar total DR, but with less shadow latitude because one has color/banding noise that the other does not:

I say "similar total DR" because there is clipping in the upper left corner of the Canon image pushed. This is a total DR difference. It's that 1 stop difference that IR measures, though we have to push the shadows to realize it's even there in this case.

(Note: these are SMALL screenshots for illustration only. So please, no one flip out over some artifact of size and start screaming that the Nikon RAW file is really better or the Canon RAW file is really worse. These tiny screenshots have diagonal banding that's not in the RAW files for example.)

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 13, 2014, 12:08:01 AM »
When I actually started planning a rental next weekend of a D810...the guy who originally demanded I prove my claims with actual data then turned around and pleaded that I simply not bother.

Where was that again? Must be your imagination since 'the guy' has been begging you to rent a D810 and do real world testing since long before this particular DRone thread.

Honest question here: why do you feel the need to twist words and misrepresent?

I think Dean's raws were quite good...I think they were properly exposed and demonstrated the issues well. They weren't extreme in any way, not like some of Mikael's "examples"...but they still demonstrated the issues well. Even those were dismissed.

They were not 'dismissed.' But they are not like 99.999% of real world shots in exposure or processing.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 13, 2014, 12:03:26 AM »
Nice. Way to fan the fire, man. You just can't stop. You even managed to throw in another equivalency with Mikael in there. Very nice. There is a reason these threads drag on forever...and a reason they get so nasty. You.

That is rich coming from you, especially when directed at Neuro  ::)

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 12, 2014, 11:59:20 PM »
It's also clear that there are different definitions of DR. Your definition of DR is incongruent with everyone else's definition of DR.

No there is not, and no I am not. And I have fully documented the correct definition in the past with enough citations to fulfill college level writing requirements. That you refused to read the links and books and learn is not my problem.

Worse for you, the only two samples provided so far, Fred Miranda's and Dean's, are congruent with my definition and in-congruent with an "engineering" or sensel definition. In both FM's and Dean's photos the total DR is very nearly the same. There are not blocked up shadows on the Canon where there are details on the Nikon. It is the shadow latitude that is different because as you push the Canon shadows noise becomes an issue.

To be clear, Exmor usually does have a bit more total DR as well. But not 2 stops as predicted by looking at the SNR of a sensel. You are not looking at a sensel or a film grain, but a 2D matrix of many sensels or film grains.

It's more than just editing latitude...We can prove this with a little math.

Yet not with photographs, the only thing that matters.

You know what you call math that can't predict real world observations? Falsified.

Actually, the theoretical limit in a 14-bit ADC is 14 stops of DR.

In a simple, perfect, theoretical world perhaps. This is the real world.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 12, 2014, 07:09:29 PM »
Exmor does not have 14 stops. That's physically impossible given a linear ADC and 14-bit depth. We will not see 14 stops without improvements in noise beyond Exmor plus 16-bit ADCs.

In my capacity as self-proclaimed ML ambassador: Their dual_iso module outputs 16bit dng raw files because 14bit wouldn't do it.

Dual ISO is like having a non-linear ADC. So yeah, you can easily break the 14-bit barrier and achieve more then 14 stops.

I've always wondered why Canon hasn't redesigned/redefined HTP to be dual ISO. From what I've seen resolution losses are minimal and DR gain, both in terms of total DR and shadow latitude, is quite impressive. It seems like it would be a relatively easy firmware change for them that would result in glowing feature reviews.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 12, 2014, 07:05:08 PM »
Here's an offer for you:
Why don't you just conceded that Exmor has 2-stops of DR advantage over Canon.

Because it doesn't have 2 more stops of total DR. Unless, of course, you're comparing the oldest 18 MP generation to the latest 24 MP Exmor generation. Same generation? The 70D is behind Exmor by 0.1 stop of total DR. I believe the 5D3 is behind by about 1 stop of total DR.

Depending on the bodies being compared, you will find pairs where there's 2, or even more, stops of additional shadow latitude. That is to say if you push the shadows the Canon is showing excessive noise or banding at +2 or +3 and the Sony can go to +4/+5.

But DR and latitude are two separate things.

And also that this is helpful and meaningful for a lot of users.

It would be more accurate to say that Exmor shadow latitude is helpful in terms of work load, and produces observably better shadow detail in print, in some cases. The work load envelope is wider then the print difference envelope. Put another way, with a little extra work there's often (not always) no difference in the final print.

And yet again: think about what you are going to say when a Canon sensor has 14-stops of DR - same as the Exmors.

Exmor does not have 14 stops. That's physically impossible given a linear ADC and 14-bit depth. We will not see 14 stops without improvements in noise beyond Exmor plus 16-bit ADCs.

If Canon changed their ADCs and achieved Exmor level shadow noise/latitude tomorrow I would be happy with the improvement. Doesn't mean I believe it's a massive difference that negatively impacts my work today.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 48